Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-02-08

upp6 ~ qasmion Ind ; Fixhs - 60
sfEeK ths n1nneQueneeN % resaaE fsnsm
~ deefsf0a. citsnz 50 uIl1ota %. -
and -. Fnrfk1T. the9 car Hzpss1s
Csur1 II pamang npen the Hantoa ESQ
sod theIstn rsndsri1a i14E8ent Ear
sassz. passed ups1 ~ cen inrlBatckzou
and ne lac ereNtinH ils shas tne menn
bers e thAt eeurf al 11FDed that eosEt
ID kha mi9st q iDpuEsazs buzlnes8.
enah jade @ninr 20 h1s onn distr1st 90
hid terns Of eoaFt psoEh1sd fer ouly
II tie acf IN question hsres and thaf
zueh anfn are ID khemaaIges ~ expEss-
sinn q nCfuBcn upsn fhe EzlidisY % sc
50 ia u1esafon fsrurabis theretn. Mr..
| Hninen. in eloafna. cited The foilgwinz
/ eaness - keW Jersey. Is; g NeW JsF-
-, SO; . Nv Jerssx, SO. ard q
/ Peun. "a. 81
Mr. HanfaEd calls stss1tiuu TO gzdze
yscobs, set similarly enkitled. and hsl
~ dpuhf sus shaa the Jnaqs considered
/ the title % his act suffefe1f. Mr.. Han.
/ fexa further nxRuss that the fact that
uuesF similarly ent7lled sets courts have
rnet. razss have been tried. suffers kaxs
I5siaated. eiecsiuns have besu held. j. Z
/ str ne argnDeuf that tee peosle gereF.
aIfF. Shat every one. W4s advised By the
titles AZ sh0se sets Of TIE sat isei usatteI
/ 70 b found therein, and haTs nnfyerszl
| " acted upou the tag g. they thereEr
/ fouad Is, that thai GOES far % say thsi
the titles Of said aets were snfdeiena g
eamplR with All tie constitutional limit
i alters and the rea1ons therefor e. laid
down IN tie booka The Law relating q
eIeesiens i similarly eBtitled % this. and
Jadrs Turner. IN his opinion, vent o1i
o. his ray 20 say that he s0nsidsred tina
act valid
Tae opinion Of Judge LanRfoFd. IN y
| far a. the same gees to hold that tksrl
/ il no sueh 4 book Of Law ~ the Code 81
| 1871, Vas laborinR under misappre-
hsnsioa &c 60 the facts, and be fHan
ford sad no dcu5s that when Afforded
an opportunity the SupFams Gear
would Eiahf ifself upon that proposition
| FARTHER, the Cods Of 1881 has beel
| recognized - such by the bench, tn
bar, the people. The legislature and b.
Congress, AID therefore h such.
In view Of ths CONSEQUENCES Of III
deoiaio0 Of this question, deoisiol
Of the SuPEeme Court upon Il shoaIt
not sad will not carry the doctrine o
Hanlen W. Territory beyond the difecl
ana necessary eEest Of the same, ne
beyond the strict letter Of it, tsxt.
oPxIoz or THE ooUEI.
desire 10 thank the Bar for thl
coartssy and promptness with whiel
thsy have responded 10 the desire o
the Court 10 bear argument on thf
question, and especially, / desire q
thank the members VITO st the reqaes
of the Bar, have undertaken 10 give tn
OouFt their views on this subject Ia
argument has besn eOndaeted viii
great ability and have been helped b.
j..
/ Without going int g discussion o
thu eases eited upon the question Of th
validity Of the act. am very clear II
my mind thai the act IL valid and tia
it will be upheld BY any future SupEem
Court Of this Territory. still, d.
think that, within the logic Of the ar
gnments advanced BY the Judges VII
delivered the opinion In the case o
Hanlan ~ toe Territsry. this Get veal
be void in consequence of the title no
expressing the object Of the act. be
IieVe, however. that the operation o
that decision Of eur Sapreme Cour
wili be narrowed greatly when enothe
case-sueh q o&se 80 may arise undo
this stasute-comes before it. shal
bold the set valid, and. regarding il q
such, shall proceed to transact the bust
mess Of the term.